Should Health Care Providers Be Forced to Apologise After Things Go Wrong?

Abstract

The issue of apologising to patients harmed by adverse events has been a subject of interest and debate within medicine, politics, and the law since the early 1980s. Although apology serves several important social roles, including recognising the victims of harm, providing an opportunity for redress, and repairing relationships, compelled apologies ring hollow and ultimately undermine these goals. Apologies that stem from external authorities’ edicts rather than an offender’s own self-criticism and moral reflection are inauthentic and contribute to a “moral flabbiness” that stunts the moral development of both individual providers and the medical profession. Following a discussion of a recent case from New Zealand in which a midwife was required to apologise not only to the parents but also to the baby, it is argued that rather than requiring health care providers to apologise, authorities should instead train, foster, and support the capacity of providers to apologise voluntarily.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Akoorie, N. 2014. Midwife told to apologise to mum. The New Zealand Herald, May 19. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11257319. Accessed May 19, 2014.

  2. Allan, A., and D. McKillop. 2010. The health implications of apologizing after an adverse event. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 22(2): 126–131.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care [ACSQHC]. 2012. Open disclosure standard review report. Sydney: ACSQHC.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care [ACSQHC]. 2013. Australian open disclosure framework. Sydney: ACSQHC.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berlinger, N. 2003. Avoiding cheap grace. The Hastings Center Report 33(6): 28–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bismark, M.M. 2009. The power of apology. The New Zealand Medical Journal 122(1304): 96–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Canadian Medical Protective Association. 2008. Communicating with your patient about harm: Disclosure of adverse events. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Protective Association.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gallagher, T.H., A.D. Waterman, A.G. Ebers, V.J. Fraser, and W. Levinson. 2003. Patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. The Journal of the American Medical Association 289(8): 1001–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gallagher, T., A.D. Waterman, J.M. Garbutt, et al. 2006. US and Canadian physicians’ attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 166(15): 1605–1611.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall, C. 2010. Ethics consultant is a master of apologies. The Dallas Morning News, June 12. http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/cheryl-hall/20100612-Ethics-consultant-is-a-master-of-4304.ece. Accessed January 17, 2014.

  11. Health and Disability Commissioner. 2008. Policy document—naming providers in public HDC reports. http://www.hdc.org.nz/media/18311/naming%20providers%20in%20public%20hdc%20reports.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2014.

  12. Health and Disability Commissioner. 2009. Guidance on open disclosure policies. http://www.hdc.org.nz/media/18328/guidance%20on%20open%20disclosure%20policies%20dec%2009.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2014.

  13. Health and Disability Commissioner. 2013a. Decision 11HDC00957. http://www.hdc.org.nz/decisions--case-notes/commissioner%27s-decisions/2013/11hdc00957. Accessed January 17, 2014.

  14. Health and Disability Commissioner. 2013b. Commissioner’s decisions 2013. http://www.hdc.org.nz/decisions--case-notes/commissioner%27s-decisions/2013. Accessed January 17, 2014.

  15. Helmreich, J.S. 2012. Does “sorry” incriminate? Evidence, harm and the protection of apology. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 21(3): 567–609.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lazare, A. 2004. On apology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Medical Errors. 2006. When things go wrong: Responding to adverse events. A consensus statement of the Harvard hospitals. Burlington: Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Medical Errors.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McLennan, S.R., and R.D. Truog. 2013. Apology laws and open disclosure. Medical Journal of Australia 198(8): 411–412.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. National Patient Safety Agency. 2009. Being open: Saying sorry when things go wrong. London: National Patient Safety Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Simmons, J., and E. Nordenhaug. 2012. The outsourcing of ethical thinking. Paper presented at the Robert I. Strozier Faculty Lecture Series, October 12, in Savannah, Georgia, USA. http://www.armstrong.edu/About/events3/events_faculty_lecture_series-_the_outsourcing_of_ethical_thinking.

  21. Taft, L. 2000. Apology subverted: The commodification of apology. The Yale Law Journal 109(5): 1135–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Taft, L. 2005. Apology and medical mistake: Opportunity or foil? Annals of Health Law 14(1): 55–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Leigh E. Rich is the editor in chief of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry but was not involved in the review or the acceptance of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart McLennan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLennan, S., Walker, S. & Rich, L.E. Should Health Care Providers Be Forced to Apologise After Things Go Wrong?. Bioethical Inquiry 11, 431–435 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-014-9571-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Medical error
  • Apology
  • Agency
  • Empathy
  • Patient advocacy